People v. Wong Cheng

Case Title and Citation

The People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Wong Cheng (alias Wong Chun), defendant-appellee.
G.R. No. 18924, October 19, 1922
Supreme Court - EN BANC
Ponente: Justice Romualdez

---

Facts

• The appellee was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa, English nationality, while the vessel was anchored in Manila Bay about two and a half miles from the city shores.
• The information initiating the case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila; the demurrer contended lack of jurisdiction.
• The Court of First Instance sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case.
• The Attorney-General appealed, urging revocation of the lower court’s ruling and asserting jurisdiction over the offense.
• The central issue concerns whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels anchored within Philippine jurisdictional waters.
• The case discusses two international-law rules: the French rule (-crimes aboard foreign ships are not prosecutable in the host country unless they affect territorial peace and security) and the English rule (jurisdiction generally lies with the country of the vessel’s presence or the territory where the act occurs).
• The Philippines recognizes the English rule, as influenced by United States jurisprudence and authority.
• The decision cites The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon and Others; United States v. Bull; Mali and Wildenhus v. Keeper of the Common Jail; United States v. Look Chaw; and Malloy’s Treatises to explain territorial jurisdiction and comity.
• The Court notes that mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit does not, as a general rule, constitute a triable offense in the Philippines, but smoking opium within Philippine territorial limits—even on a foreign vessel—is a breach of public order and within local jurisdiction.
• The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without special findings as to costs.

---

Issues

1. Did the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay?
2. Is smoking opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel within Philippine territorial waters a crime triable by Philippine courts?

---

Ruling

1. Yes — Philippine courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed on foreign merchant vessels within territorial waters; the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction was erroneous.
2. Yes — smoking opium within Philippine territorial limits, even on a foreign vessel, constitutes a breach of public order and is triable by Philippine courts.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Territorial sovereignty extends to offenses committed within the Philippines’ territorial waters; when a vessel enters or anchors within those waters (approximately within three miles), it becomes subject to the local jurisdiction.
• The English rule is favored in Philippine jurisprudence, aligning with United States jurisprudence, whereby crimes committed in territorial waters or within the jurisdiction’s borders fall under the local authorities.
• Early authorities cited include The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon (Marshall) and United States v. Bull, which discuss when ships entering territorial waters fall under local jurisdiction.
• United States v. Look Chaw clarifies that possession of prohibited articles aboard a foreign vessel in transit is generally not triable, but the act of bringing the offense onto Philippine soil constitutes a local crime.
• Comity recognizes that while there can be conflict in jurisdiction, the acts affecting public order within the territorial state justify local adjudication.
• The Court concludes that smoking opium on a vessel anchored in Manila Bay produces pernicious effects within Philippine territory and violates the public order statute, warranting local prosecution.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Territorial sovereignty extends to crimes committed within territorial waters.
• Crimes affecting public order within a state’s territory are triable locally, even when committed on foreign vessels anchored therein.
• When a vessel is within territorial waters, the home state’s exclusive jurisdiction may be overridden by the host state for offenses affecting the host territory.
• Comity may regulate but does not negate the host state’s jurisdiction over offenses affecting its peace and security.
• Reliance on established authorities (Schooner Exchange; United States v. Bull; Look Chaw) supports the territorial-based jurisdiction principle.

---

Disposition

• The fallo (final action) of the case: The order of the Court of First Instance sustaining the demurrer is revoked; the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without special findings as to costs.
• The petition/complaint was not upheld; the demurrer was not sustained.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• The decision notes concurrence: Justices Araullo, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns concurred in the judgment.

---

Significance / Notes

• Establishes that Philippine courts possess jurisdiction over criminal acts committed on foreign vessels anchored within Philippine waters when such acts affect public order in the Philippines.
• Highlights the tension between different international-law approaches (French vs English rules) and reaffirms the English rule within the Philippine jurisprudential framework at the time.
• Clarifies limits of prosecutorial reach: mere possession aboard a foreign vessel in transit is generally not triable, but actions producing local effects within territorial limits are prosecutable locally.
• Provides early 20th-century Philippine jurisprudence on maritime jurisdiction and criminal law, relevant for subsequent cases involving crimes on ships and port-area offenses.